After seeing M.I.A's controversial new
video for the single
Born Free, I feel a little sad at the fact that gone are the days where the excitement of music was simply about getting your hands on [
insert favourite artist]'s new record/tape/cd, and is now simply geared towards the sentence, "oh my god, have you seen so and so's new video??"
It's like the actual song has become secondary, and the bigger the budget/more controversial the video, all the better (extra points if you can combine high budget
and controversy like Lady Gaga, in which case you'll be laughing all the way to the bank).
But anyway, onto the actual video for
Born Free. M.I.A's got balls, I'll give her that. The nine minute film was directed by Romain Gavras (whose last controversial offering was Justice's
Stress) and has already received the obligatory ban from youtube.
In summary, it features American police storming into a block of flats, aggressively pushing aside a middle aged couple in the middle of getting down and dirty (sexual scenes: check), before finding their target - a young man who they bundle into one of their vans and drive off to the desert. His crime? He, like every other person in the van, is a redhead. Yep,
welcome to the ginger holocaust.
Reaching their desert destination, the redheads are lined up, and watch as one officer shoots a young boy in the head.
Just in case you missed the gore, this is helpfully played out in slow motion, for full bone chilling effect. The rest of the line-up are ordered to run, in a chase to their inevitable deaths (a combination of gunshots and being blown to pieces by landmines if you must know). Meanwhile, our protagonist eventually stumbles, and is brutally beaten. You get the gist of it...
Interestingly, eagle eyed youtube commenters have spotted that the colouring and complexions of the police would suggest that under their helmets, they too have red hair - a clever symbol of the hypocrisy involved in most conflicts.
Highly provocative and politically charged, it's clear that with this video, M.I.A isn't interested in 'sucking up' to her American audience; she's been outspoken in the past about what she believes to be the US government's censorship of Sri Lankan homicide, saying of the scenes of fighting between the rebels and the army: "It's systematic genocide, ethnic cleansing ... it's just out and out Nazi Germany".
However, in her native Sri Lanka, the majority of people view the rebels as "terrorists" and deny a genocide. The singer - whose father was a Tamil "revolutionary" - has also faced accusations of spreading "terrorist propaganda".
Regardless of her personal reasons for the video, the simple fact is that a statement like this is always going to face cynical accusations. Make a controversial video, stir up some buzz, and hey presto: record sales. M.I.A might believe she's doing things her own way, but it's to the glee of her record company.
In a Guardian article, Anna Pickard comments on the video's unnessessary use of 'shock images', saying that the video's powerful message:
'Is diluted by the fact that Gavras, again, seems to pack random "shocking" images into the film, for no apparent reason other than to say "LOOK! Overweight naked people! They're having sex, even though they're FAT! And here in the next room there's a nice old man smoking crack! Ooooooh, isn't it shocking!
'It's not a part of the film that adds anything or contributes to the story, the message or the issues. It's more like the News at Ten opening with Huw Edwards shouting "POO BUM WILLY TITS!" before launching into the headlines.'
I somewhat agree with Pickard, and it makes you wonder: just how much of the ideas in the video are M.I.A and Gavras' doing, and how much of it has been pushed by record label fat cats, greedy to generate column inches and an internet buzz?
Interestingly, M.I.A is label mates with Lady Gaga, who she's also voiced her opinions on, telling NME:
"Do we still need record labels? Are they even interested in making money from music anymore? Lady Gaga plugs 15 things in her new video. Dude, she even plugs a burger! That’s probably how they’re making money right now - buying up the burger joint, putting the burger in a music video and making loads of burger money."
She goes on to say, "She models herself on Grace Jones and Madonna but the music sounds like 20 year-old Ibiza disco. She's not progressive, but she's a good mimic... None of her music’s reflective of how weird she wants to be or thinks she is”.
Some brilliantly fair points: I actually think Lady Gaga is alright, but her downfall is how seriously she takes her self-proclaimed 'art'. While I agree her that her image is refreshing (her crazy ensembles are as close as we're ever gonna get to the stir that artists like New York Dolls, Bowie et al provoked back in the day), she holds too high an opinion of her music when speaking about it in interviews, when it's not groundbreaking or different in any way.
To me, her chart songs downplay her actual talent, and it's only when she sits down at her piano that you get any sense of her as an artist, with something to say.
Gaga also claims to be doing things her own way, yet I find that her beliefs often contradict the outcome. In an interview with Q magazine, she discussed the early reservations her record company had about her image, and how she fought tooth and nail to avoid the sexualised pop star cliché: "The last thing a young woman needs is another picture of a sexy pop star writhing in sand, covered in grease, touching herself."
A valid point, yes. Yet Gaga's image has always been about flashing the flesh, and has consequently become more and more sexualised (yes, I'm talking about those close-ups on her 'derriere' in the Telephone video, not to mention the previous video offering by Bey and Gaga, aka the porn-tastic and not-at-all-subtle Video Phone).
Above: Ok, so granted Lady G; there's no sand or grease, but there's definite 'writhing'.
If this video - and accompanying lyrics - isn't a blatant display of SEX SEX SEX, then stick a telephone on my head and call me 'gaga'
So what point am I trying to make out of all of this? Essentially, when I saw the Born Free video, I felt compelled to write about it because on the one hand I think it's gutsy, and a politically charged statement like that is not something that a money-driven 'product' like Lady Gaga could - or would - ever dare do.
On the other hand, the video is reflective of the 'shock' tactics employed in music and film; the more graphic, the more violent, and the more sexually explicit the product, the more publicity it generates which ultimately equates to sales.
Whether that formula will work in the case of Born Free, we'll just have to wait and see. Then again, with Diana Vickers presently at number one, maybe I've got it all wrong, and it's actually less about the shock factor, and more about the bland factor.
Incidentally, I think Born Free as a 'song' is basically the same as what M.IA accuses Gaga of anyway. It's an unoriginal offering, wrapped up in an extravagant video which gives it the pretence of something bigger.
Strip Born Free of its provocative video, and it's just M.I.A "sampling" yet another classic song (Ghost Rider by Suicide) and adding some distorted, fuzzy shouty vocals over the top of it.
As Planet Ill says, "It will get casual pop-punk fans off the wall and those hipster folks will like it because they will assume she’s saying something deep because she’s yelling over a punk track. However, if you prefer substance over style I can give you the names of 10 punk bands that will suit you better."
Posts
